Three Visions of 1947: Jinnah, Azad, and the British: Who Was Right? By Dr Shabir Choudhry, 04 January 2026, London

 Three Visions of 1947: Jinnah, Azad, and the British: Who Was Right?

By Dr Shabir Choudhry, 04 January 2026, London

In 1947, as British India moved toward independence, three distinct and competing visions shaped the fate of the subcontinent. Each vision offered a different diagnosis of the problem and a different solution. More than seven decades later, developments in India and Pakistan compel us to ask a painful but necessary question: Who was right?

1. Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s Argument: Protection Through Separation

Muhammad Ali Jinnah argued that once the British left, India would inevitably become a Hindu-majoritarian state in which Muslims and other minorities—particularly Sikhs—would be politically marginalised. He believed constitutional guarantees would be insufficient to protect minority rights in a Hindu-dominated polity.

Mr Jinnah famously warned that Muslims and Sikhs who supported the Indian National Congress would one day be forced to prove their loyalty to India repeatedly. His solution was the creation of Pakistan—a separate homeland where Muslims could live with dignity, political power, and security.

Looking at today’s India, with the rise of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), lynchings, citizenship laws targeting Muslims, and shrinking space for dissent, many now argue that Jinnah’s fears were not imaginary. The pressure on Indian Muslims to constantly demonstrate patriotism lends troubling weight to his warnings.

2. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad’s Vision: Unity Without Division

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad rejected the two-nation theory. He believed that religion could not be the basis of a viable modern state and warned that dividing India on religious lines would weaken Muslims politically, economically, and morally.

Azad argued that a religious state would struggle to sustain democracy, protect minorities, or maintain economic stability. He also predicted that Pakistan would face internal fractures and that East Pakistan might eventually break away. History proved this prediction tragically accurate in 1971, when Bangladesh emerged after a bloody civil war.

Azad also warned that Pakistan might become “Muslims without Islam”—a state using religion as a political tool rather than as a moral compass. Looking at Pakistan’s cycles of military rule, Islamisation under General Zia-ul-Haq, sectarian violence, and persecution of minorities, many now concede that Azad’s critique was profoundly foresighted.

3. The British Perspective: Divide, Exit, and Let Them Fight

The British view was the most cynical. Colonial administrators increasingly argued that the peoples of the subcontinent were incapable of living together peacefully without imperial oversight. They believed communal conflict was inevitable and that Britain’s responsibility ended with a rapid withdrawal.

Partition was rushed, poorly planned, and brutally executed. Borders were drawn without regard for human consequences, resulting in one of the largest migrations and bloodiest communal massacres in history. The British left behind unresolved disputes—especially Kashmir—ensuring long-term instability.

From today’s vantage point, with India and Pakistan locked in permanent hostility, nuclearised rivalry, and repeated crises, it is difficult to deny that British pessimism about post-colonial stability has also been vindicated—though it was a prophecy they helped fulfil.

A Bitter Historical Verdict

Looking at India alone, one may conclude Mr Jinnah was right.

Looking at Pakistan alone, one may conclude that Maulana Azad was right.

Looking at both together, one may reluctantly conclude the British were right—not morally, but practically.

This is the tragic irony of Partition.

Conclusion: The Cost of Unresolved History

Partition did not resolve the subcontinent’s problems; it institutionalised them. India’s drift toward majoritarianism, Pakistan’s struggle with identity and governance, and the enduring conflict over Kashmir all stem from unresolved questions of citizenship, equality, and state purpose.

History does not offer simple verdicts. It offers lessons—often ignored, sometimes recognised too late. The tragedy of 1947 is not only what happened then, but how its consequences continue to shape injustice, fear, and division today.

The real failure was not choosing the “wrong” vision, but failing to build states rooted in justice, pluralism, and accountability—the very principles that could have proved all three visions wrong.

Dr Shabir Choudhry is a London-based political analyst, author, and expert on South Asian affairs, with a focus on Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Kashmir.

Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com